![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kinzelWhat we did was talk with Diane Duane and Chris Meadows, long distance, for an hour or so... you can listen to us here at episode 3! about the concept of authors being paid directly by their readers. A fun time was had by all.
Please feel free to download or listen to the mp3!
Please feel free to download or listen to the mp3!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
2006-12-18 17:41 (UTC)1. The way individual authors have adapated the model to their own styles, writing habits, economic situations, etc. It sounds like "one size fits all" won't ever happen, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but that there could be enough standardization that a "chinese menu" sort of standard will develop.
2. The fact that all successes to date have been for further works in established series/universes. That doesn't surprise me at all.
3. The number of people who contribute quite a bit more than the cost of a book. I think all of the authors I've heard on this subject have been shocked that some people will donate $50 or $100 or more.
I suppose I'd rather have the authors be shocked than *expect* that kind of support, but it doesn't really surprise me. Contributors aren't paying for a copy of a book; they're paying for the *existence* of a book, plus a copy. In some cases, the copy will be the trivial part of the value received. How much would I have given, back when it was still possible, for Alexei Panshin to write The Univeral Pantograph? A heckuva lot more than the price of a book. How much would I give today, if it were the only way to have Walter Jon Williams write a third-and-final book in the Metropolitan series? A lot more than the price of a book.
4. The lack of discussion about direct marketing, mass customization, cutting out the middleman, etc.
I'm one of those people who believes that publishing is broken. The death of the mid-list, the way popular books can be out of print for long periods of time, the pernicious focus on sell-through (which interprets lousy marketing as the author's fault), and many other symptoms cause me to doubt -- extremely -- that the current publishing industry is capable of recognizing and meeting even quite large and focused demand.
Storyteller's Bowl, and similar models, allow authors capable of satisfying a focused demand and to do so profitably, without having to wait for a publisher to figure it out, and without the risk that the publisher will screw it up. (Quality freelance editors are also necessary, but that's not an insuperable obstacle.)
This gets back to why additional works in a given series/universe are the best bet: they're most likely to have an existing focused demand out there and waiting, and they're more consistent in quality than de novo works. The high guarantee of customer satisfaction is what supports the willingness to pay in advance.
5.
Anyway, enough babbling. I'm happy that you (and Lawrence, and others) are doing this, I'm happy you had a chance to talk about it in public, and I think the interview went well.
no subject
2006-12-19 11:48 (UTC)1. One size fits all is what people get used to dealing with on the interface end -- it make it easy fro the end user. In other words, writers/artists rarely do things in an orderly fashion. If there hadn't been publishers along the way, writers would still be arguing over the best quill pens...
...having said that, in the long run things will shake-out somewhat. I think.
2. I think it's required until such time as a reliable reviewer/presenter mode is created.
3. Having been told by a publisher that "the numbers aren't there" it can be hard to see that the problem is what numbers are being counted.
4. That's a difficult discussion and our host didn't have time to push in that direction. It'll probably get talked about a lot in coming months in other venues.
5. I think our newspaper background also helps us.